Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Money & More Inc. (M&M) allegedly maintained and operated a Ponzi scheme. Pursuant to a petition filed by the State, the district court issued a temporary restraining order freezing Defendants' assets and later entered a preliminary injunction. Several hundred individuals and dozens of corporations that made fraudulent investments formed Money & More Investors LLC (MMI) and assigned to it their rights, interests, and claims against Defendants, who included the individuals comprising M&M. After reaching a settlement agreement with Defendants, MMI filed a motion to intervene in the State's preservation action. The district court granted MMI both intervention as of right under Utah R. Civ. P. 24(a) and, in the alternative, permissive intervention under Utah R. Civ. P. 24(b). The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of intervention as of right, holding that MMI met all the elements of rule 24(a) where (1) MMI's motion to intervene was timely; (2) MMI had a direct interest relating to the property; (3) MMI sufficiently established that the original parties to the suit would inadequately represent MMI's interests; and (4) MMI would be bound by the judgment.View "State v. Bosh" on Justia Law

Liberty commenced this action against the Trustee under the Indenture, seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the proposed Capital Splitoff would not constitute a disposition of "substantially all" of Liberty's assets in violation of the Indenture. The Court of Chancery concluded, after a trial, that the four transactions at issue should not be aggregated, and entered judgment for Liberty. The Court of Chancery concluded that the proposed splitoff was not "sufficiently connected" to the prior transactions to warrant aggregation for purposes of the Successor Obligor Provision. The court agreed with the judgment of the Court of Chancery and affirmed.View "The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Liberty Media Corp." on Justia Law

The Secretary filed an administrative complaint alleging that three hedge funds offered by Bulldog Investors violated section 301 of G.L.c. 110A by offering unregistered securities to a Massachusetts resident through a publicly available website and an e-mail message. The Secretary adopted the hearing officer's finding of a violation and ordered Bulldog Investors to cease and desist from committing any further violations and to take all necessary actions to ensure that future offers and sales of securities complied with section 301. The court held that the challenged provisions of the Massachusetts law were part of a constitutionally permissible disclosure scheme and, to the extent that they restricted speech, they were tailored in a reasonable manner to serve a substantial state interest in promoting the integrity of capital markets by ensuring a fully informed investing public. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.View "Bulldog Investors, et al. v. Secretary of the Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Jean W. Reed, Mary W. Haynes, and Susan W. Stockham ("the sisters") sued Regions Bank ("Regions"), Morgan Asset Management, Inc. ("MAM"), Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. ("Morgan Keegan"), and Regions Financial Corporation ("RFC"), alleging several claims related to the investment of assets belonging to two trusts set up for the benefit of Reed and Haynes. MAM, Morgan Keegan, and RFC unsuccessfully moved the Jefferson Circuit Court to dismiss the claims against them, arguing among other things, that the claims were derivative in nature and could be asserted only in compliance with Rule 23.1, Ala. R. Civ. P., with which the sisters did not comply. MAM, Morgan Keegan, and RFC petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to grant their motion to dismiss. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the sisters had not alleged an injury distinct from that suffered by the trusts' funds; the claims against MAM, Morgan Keegan, and RFC in their complaint were derivative and did not comply with Rule 23.1 for asserting such claims. The sisters therefore lacked standing to sue. The Court granted the petition and issued the writ. View "Reed v. Regions Bank" on Justia Law

Callan Associates petitioned the Supreme Court for the writ of mandamus to direct the Montgomery Circuit Court to dismiss an action filed by Carol Perdue in her role as the legal guardian of Anna Perdue, who sued on behalf of the Wallace-Folsom Prepaid College Trust Fund. Ms. Perdue opened an account with the Trust Fund on behalf of her Daughter Anna. After making monthly payments, Anna would be entitled to reduced in-state tuition and fees. The Trust's assets pooled all such contributions and invested them so that designated beneficiaries would receive the promised benefits. The Trust hired Callan Associates as an investment consultant. The Trust's management notified beneficiaries that because of the stock market downturn of 2009, the Trust's assets were negatively impacted. Subsequently, Ms. Perdue sued on behalf of Anna and the Trust, contending that Callan and the Trustees mismanaged the Trust's assets. Callan moved to dismiss which the Circuit Court denied. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Callan argued that Ms. Perdue lacked standing to bring her claims. Furthermore, Callan argued that Ms. Perdue's claims were not ripe for adjudication since none of the beneficiaries have had tuition paid from the Trust. The Supreme Court concluded that "Callan's motion to dismiss in the trial court was well founded"; therefore the Court granted Callan's petition and issued the requested writ to direct the trial court to dismiss Ms. Perdue's claims.View "Perdue v. Callan Associates, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant AIA Services Corporation entered into a stock redemption agreement with Appellant Reed Taylor to purchase all of his shares in AIA Services for a $1.5 million down payment promissory note and a $6 million promissory note, plus other consideration. When AIA failed to pay the $1.5 million when it became due, Appellant and AIA agreed to modify the stock redemption agreement. AIA was a still unable to make payments under the new terms. Appellant then filed suit to recover the amounts owed on the two promissory notes. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of AIA and dismissed six of Appellant's causes of action after finding the revised stock redemption agreement was unenforceable. On appeal, Appellant argued the redemption agreement complied with state law and was still enforceable. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's holding that the agreement was illegal and unenforceable and affirmed the court's dismissal of Appellant's six causes of action.View "Reed J. Taylor v. AIA Services " on Justia Law

CML, a junior secured creditor of JetDirect, sued JetDirect's present and former officers directly and derivatively for breaching their fiduciary duties. The Vice Chancellor dismissed all four of CML's claims. The court affirmed the judgment because CML, as a JetDirector creditor, lacked standing to sue derivatively on JetDirect's behalf.View "CML V, LLC, et al. v. Bax, et al." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute between a hedge fund manager and the hedge fund's seed investor. The central issue was contractual and involved whether the hedge fund manager could use the Gate Provision in the Partnership Agreement to lock up the seed investor. The court held that the hedge fund manager's refusal to honor the withdrawal request and return the seed investor's capital in full was a violation of the Seeder Agreement and a breach of contract. The court held that, in the alternative, even if the Gates were potentially applicable, it was a breach of fiduciary duty for the hedge fund manager to use the Gates solely for a selfish reason. Therefore, the court ordered the immediate return to the seed investor of all of its capital and awarded interest to compensate it for the delay. The court also disposed of several other claims raised by the hedge fund manager and the seed investor.View "Paige Capital Mgmt., LLC, et al. v. Lerner Master Fund, LLC et al." on Justia Law

Defendants Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company, L.P. (KKR), KKR Associates, KKR Partners II, and Crimson Associates, L.P., as well as several individuals, petitioned the Supreme Court for the writ of mandamus to direct a circuit court to vacate its order that denied their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint because it lacked personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs in this action were 46 individuals, partnerships, corporations, foundations, trusts and retirement and pension funds located throughout the country that invested in certain promissory notes issued as part of a leveraged recapitalization of Bruno's Inc., a supermarket-grocery business with its headquarters in Alabama. Plaintiffs contended that despite a negative due-diligence report from its forensic accountant, KKR decided to proceed with its acquisition of Bruno's. In order to achieve the recapitalization, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants made material, fraudulent misrepresentations to the Plaintiffs' investment money manger that induced them into purchasing the notes. Based on the torts allegedly committed by the individual defendants, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendants' motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court denied Defendants' application for the writ of mandamus, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "27001 Partnership v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P." on Justia Law

This case arose when Commerzbank agreed to acquire Dresdner Bank in September 2008. As part of the deal, Commerzbank also acquired Dresdner Bank's trust preferred structures, and holders of Dresdner's trust preferred securities received distributions in both 2009 and 2010. Plaintiff claimed that paying those distributions "pushed," or required Commerzbank to make distributions on, a class of its owned preferred securities in which plaintiff had an interest, and, by the complaint, plaintiff asked the court to enforce that alleged obligation. Plaintiff also sought specific performance of a support agreement that was argued to require the elevation of the liquidation preference of Commerzbank's trust preferred securities in response to a restructuring of one class of the Dresdner securities. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court held, among other things, that because the DresCap Trust Certificates did not qualify as either Parity Securities, defendants were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law regarding plaintiff's claim under the Pusher Provision. The court also held that because DresCap Trust Certificates did not qualify as either Parity Securities or Junior Securities, Section 6 of the Support Undertaking was not triggered by amendment of the DresCap Trust IV Certificates. Accordingly, defendants were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law regarding plaintiff's claim that the amendment of the DresCap Trust IV Certificates required defendants to amend the Trusted Preferred Securities.View "The Bank of New York Mellon v. Commerzbank Capital Funding Trust II, et al." on Justia Law